Wrote a letter
Wrote it in blood
My paper cut finger couldn't bleed enough
I left it all there for you to find

Blood spilled across the page
Maybe I've got too much to say
100 confessions you never listened to
I wrote words to leave a sweet taste in your mind
Some were too much to write
I was bleeding out the worst blood
My anger turned to dust

Wanted a reply
Watched the time
Counted the hours on my finger-less hands
The clock couldn't meet my demands, so why would you?
Maybe I'll see you soon

It's pretty basic and probably needs lots of work. I just need some advice/criticism.

Not a big deal...haha its just a challenge problem my teacher gave us to see if anyone could figure it out.

log5(x)= log6(2x+1)

Trying to solve this for x....and I'm just not really sure what to do.

I forget the log rules... Sorry. Been a while since I've done that.

Not a big deal...haha its just a challenge problem my teacher gave us to see if anyone could figure it out.

^ This.

I suppose that is true. Rule of thumb. Never enter a fight without some sort of back up. I've always gone with making a fight as fair as possible but if you're out-manned, then get the bros. Not worth being beaten to death by 5 guys.

If only I were a gigolo

Yes it changed. And it was radical. Thank you for helping me understand macro-evolutionists point of view.

Yes but that isn't the point, the point is that dna can only change so much. Like yes, my bird, over a very long time of fucking, could look different (its' off spring) but, it could never transform into an eagle like bird, due to the limited DNA and alleles. But, here is a mutation. caiquecrazy.com/species/blue-mutation It looks like this because it was born without the yellow pigment. Keyword; without.

I just gave you an example of a radical change in DNA and you tossed it out because it's "negative". But in the world of survival, "negative" is subjective. Factors that we may see as detrimental in our current surroundings may not even matter in another environment. Again, I'm no expert, but even a limited sample of examples should show a layperson that it's indeed plausible.

Yes it changed. And it was radical. Thank you for helping me understand macro-evolutionists point of view.

I too, am not well educated on this subject as others, but I am reading this book and it stated that, it can change the genetic code, but the documented cases were all for the worse. Like down syndrome.

And it's up to the selective process to weed them out. A mutation has to match its surroundings. It's just that due to the completely random nature of the mutations, many don't.

But what if the selective pressure was removed? I mean, some Down's patients are quite capable, but either they're not genetically compatible or people simply don't find that shit attractive (sexual selection). What if you took all the Downy people and put them in a room, got them all hot and bothered, and got them to get jiggy with it? In a couple decades you'd have another sect of people. Release them into the wild, and see what gets weeded out. Maybe you'd see that a lot of the situationally negative Down's traits get stripped from the population as the members carrying them simply die or can't get laid.

Yes but that isn't the point, the point is that dna can only change so much. Like yes, my bird, over a very long time of fucking, could look different (its' off spring) but, it could never transform into an eagle like bird, due to the limited DNA and alleles. But, here is a mutation. caiquecrazy.com/species/blue-mutation It looks like this because it was born without the yellow pigment. Keyword; without.

I just gave you an example of a radical change in DNA and you tossed it out because it's "negative". But in the world of survival, "negative" is subjective. Factors that we may see as detrimental in our current surroundings may not even matter in another environment. Again, I'm no expert, but even a limited sample of examples should show a layperson that it's indeed plausible.

Yes it changed. And it was radical. Thank you for helping me understand macro-evolutionists point of view.

I just can't rap my head around alleles. People like to answer the question with "mutations" but mutations do not add to the genetic code.

I haven't studied the field as extensively as I've studied other topics, but look at Down's Syndrome. Not a beneficial example, but it's an example. That's a whole extra chromosome you've got going there. That's a pretty radical addition of genetic material. On top of that, the human genome is full of "useless" data that's accumulated over millions of years. Some of it's even there because of viruses our ancestors contracted. There are ways. They're just often detrimental or useless. The detrimental mutations either get weeded out, and useless ones often go unnoticed for generations.

I too, am not well educated on this subject as others, but I am reading this book and it stated that, it can change the genetic code, but the documented cases were all for the worse. Like down syndrome.

And it's up to the selective process to weed them out. A mutation has to match its surroundings. It's just that due to the completely random nature of the mutations, many don't.

But what if the selective pressure was removed? I mean, some Down's patients are quite capable, but either they're not genetically compatible or people simply don't find that shit attractive (sexual selection). What if you took all the Downy people and put them in a room, got them all hot and bothered, and got them to get jiggy with it? In a couple decades you'd have another sect of people. Release them into the wild, and see what gets weeded out. Maybe you'd see that a lot of the situationally negative Down's traits get stripped from the population as the members carrying them simply die or can't get laid.

Yes but that isn't the point, the point is that dna can only change so much. Like yes, my bird, over a very long time of fucking, could look different (its' off spring) but, it could never transform into an eagle like bird, due to the limited DNA and alleles. But, here is a mutation. caiquecrazy.com/species/blue-mutation It looks like this because it was born without the yellow pigment. Keyword; without.

I just gave you an example of a radical change in DNA and you tossed it out because it's "negative". But in the world of survival, "negative" is subjective. Factors that we may see as detrimental in our current surroundings may not even matter in another environment. Again, I'm no expert, but even a limited sample of examples should show a layperson that it's indeed plausible.

Yes it changed. And it was radical. Thank you for helping me understand macro-evolutionists point of view.

Is it normal that I keep thinking about how much fun it was?

There is a difference between drinking it because you wanna enjoy a fun time. or drinking because you want to forget your sorrows.

So if I had a few beers, enjoyed the loopy, silly, happy go lucky feelings that went with it, and I kinda want to do it again some time, that's normal?

That's normal. It only becomes a problem when you drink constantly or at unnecessary times like having a drink with breakfast or bringing your hip flask when you go shopping, stuff like that.

Got it!

and while we're on the subject, my friend (female) genuinely believes that the first time she tries alcohol she'll insta-alcoholic because it runs in her family apparantly.

Should I convince her that's not necesarrily true or just let her live her life?

Yes, I went to my first party last Saturday, and that is exactly how I'm feeling about it. You enjoyed the experience the beer gave you, not the beer itself.

how old are you? 12?

I'm 17.

Pathetic.

Sorry to be born at a time you find unacceptable.

You have the mind of a 12 year old at the age of 17. Pathetic.

Alright.

Good.....tasted like shit, but I got over it. Thanks, I was worried there quite honestly.

Don't drink a screwdriver or amaretto you'll be an alcoholic for sure

They were just budlights......

I provided no elaboration on what I was talking about, it's a vague reference to a previous discussion. That's why I was talking to paintbucket seeing as this is something we have agreed on in the past.

thinking hard on it, it would mean more government control.
if in order to own a weapon, you would have to be part of a mandatory government-organized militia.
so, that really defeats the purpose, and is really no different than the national guard.
and there's no reason for mandatory training.
people aren't dying at alarming rates because of untrained use of firearms.

mind you, 100 people die PER DAY as a result of vehicle collisions
and we mandate you take a class and get a license to drive.

i really doubt mandatory firearms training would have any impact on accidental firearm deaths.

I'll have to go back and look at the details but I think the jist of what it settled on was a state funded and maintained army that the federal government had no jurisdiction over, people could own any military asset they wanted with the obvious exception of chem, bio and nuclear weapons. The militia had to keep records of all weapons in it's arsenal and everyone had receive extensive training before they could own even a handgun. And they didn't have to actually be part of the militia if they gun they owned could reasonably be justified as strictly barebones what they needed to defend themselves in the most typical situations as well as bolt-action rifles for hunting.
Like I said I'll have to go back and look.

The part that appealed to me most was that the 2 biggest source of guns for criminals would be theoretically devastated. Training would ensure people stored weapons in a way they couldn't get stolen and people who did under the table trades would get caught once a weapon was found were it shouldn't be through the record keeping.

In most states if you want to get a concealed carry permit, you have to show that you have experience with a weapon. In my state, people who have been in the armed forces are pretty much exempt from that (I'd have to check the exact wording). I think it would be nice if the national guard hosted military training for civilians (paid for by those who want the training, not public) and that training could also be used when applying for a CCW. That way we could also have a better trained militia that is run by the state. All the would be optional, not mandatory.

Thoughts?

isn't run by the state*

I don't see anything wrong with that. How the militia functions isn't the important part to me. It's the extra regulations that come with it that make this proposal appealing to me.

Weapon storage training should still be mandatory. It should also be a law that when you leave a gun at home it must be locked in a safe. Or somehow unobtainable by a burglar. But not so when the owner is home (if some one tries to break into your home while you're there and packing but are still unable to prevent them from stealing it, then I have no words. You are not only a complete moron but you never deserved to have a gun in the first place.)

I noticed that also get's ride of the record keeping system, which is admittedly disappointing. If you don't like that idea what would you do to crack down on straw purchasers? How do we stop people who can pass background checks from going to a gun store, buying a shit ton of guns then turning around and sell them to inner city gang members for a profit?

For the weapon storage thing, simply having a house is good enough. If they break into your house, they're the criminal. It being illegal to not lock up a gun in a safe would be a victimless crime. It's the thief's fault for entering the house in the first place, not the gun owner's (unless the gun is left in the front lawn with easy access)

If guns are recovered in a crime, they can be traced through the manufacturer and then to the FFL dealer. The dealer can then tell you who they sold the gun to. The police then go to that person. A responsible person, if they sold the gun to someone, should have some sort of paperwork that basically says "I sold it to this guy; go talk to him" and both party's signatures would be on it. Keep in mind, it's already illegal to privately sell a gun to a person if you have a reason to believe the can't own a firearm.

The best you could do is make NICS, the background check system that dealers use, public so that a person can actually know who they're selling the gun to. The laws are already there, the problem is being able to enforce them.

If Nancy Lanza had kept her guns in a safe instead of a glass cabinet, it very well might of prevented the Newtown massacre. All things considering it's worth doing, I know the libertarian position wants to think of guns as any other object but it's just not practical, owning one has to come with it a responsibility that's at least on par with cars.

I suppose there is that, but it still seams like it's not doing enough. Criminals don't usually lose their guns at a crime scene. They do however tend to leave plenty of bullets at crime scenes. What can we do with bullets? Ballistics fingerprinting. If manufactures or police had records of ballistics fingerprints that are taken before the guns are ever sold instead of after they've been confiscated, finding a bullet at a crime scene would be just as case breaking as finding the gun itself.

BTW You do support universal background checks right?

If a person leaves their car unlocked and it get stolen, then the car is later used to run over a pedestrian, is it the original car owner's fault? no...
It's irresponsible to not secure your guns but it shouldn't be illegal.

A record of ballistic is horribly inefficient. I think an east coast state tried it and it turned out to be a huge waste of money. All a person would have to do is use a different type of ammo and the fingerprint would be different (also handloaded bullets)

I'm for people having the means to make a wise and informed decision. It's already illegal to privately sell to a felon or a mentally ill person so people should have access to NICS so they can determine whether or not that person can buy a gun. Simply making a law that tells people to get a background check doesn't do anything; it would be impossible to enforce without a national gun registry, which I'm completely against.

If it were possible to buy a car without passenger seat belts and you get into a head on collision because someone else broke a traffic law and as a result your passenger's die, would that be right too? No... that's why it's illegal for cars not to have passenger seat belts and it's illegal not to wear them. It doesn't hurt you or hinder your rights in any way and when people die because of not using them and usually blame can't be placed, but it's still a law simply because it saves lives. Maybe the safe law isn't the answer (it certainly is if it could be enforced) but there probably are other more practical things we could do.

Straw purchasers don't care about background checks, so even if the NICS was available they wouldn't use it and we would still have a problem.

The state you are referring to was Maryland, it was only in effect for 4 years, so only new guns purchased in the state of Maryland within those 4 years was on record, and people were surprised that it failed? State gun laws don't usually work because people can just go to another state with more lenient gun laws to make their purchases, so comparing them to a potential Federal law isn't really fair. But yes, that's not entirely why this one failed, your right ballistics fingerprinting isn't at the level it needs to be for this to be an effective solution yet.

Because we can. It's inevitable that the police will start using drones at some point in the future. When there is so much good they could be doing now why wait? We could use them to patrol the Mexican boarder, survey highways to better divert traffic in the even of accidents, stationed at prisons to pursue potential escapees, or act as the necessary eyes in the sky the police need during a car chase. Spying on people in their homes is probably the least useful or worthwhile thing they could be doing with drones, and it's not even the most effective method of gathering that sort of information. Police hiding in vehicles at street level accomplishes that task much more effectively, they can access your wi-fi network, use sonic devices to listen into your home, photograph it at a closer range then a drone would offer, be discrete enough that you would probably never notice it, and don't have a time limit on how long they can wait there based on the capacity of a fuel tank. That's why I don't think it's a justifiable worry to bar such an asset from people who's job it is to keep us safe.

That would be illegal though, and at some point in the near future it will be possible for citizens to do just that. Even if they outlaw them the technology is simple enough that people can build their own. That's one of the crimes that law enforcement may not be able to stop unless they have drones themselves.

We'll have to deal with that as it comes, but until then, why would you rush the process?

Because we can. It's inevitable that the police will start using drones at some point in the future. When there is so much good they could be doing now why wait? We could use them to patrol the Mexican boarder, survey highways to better divert traffic in the even of accidents, stationed at prisons to pursue potential escapees, or act as the necessary eyes in the sky the police need during a car chase. Spying on people in their homes is probably the least useful or worthwhile thing they could be doing with drones, and it's not even the most effective method of gathering that sort of information. Police hiding in vehicles at street level accomplishes that task much more effectively, they can access your wi-fi network, use sonic devices to listen into your home, photograph it at a closer range then a drone would offer, be discrete enough that you would probably never notice it, and don't have a time limit on how long they can wait there based on the capacity of a fuel tank. That's why I don't think it's a justifiable worry to bar such an asset from people who's job it is to keep us safe.